full coverage or not?

[LostDollar]

The funny thing is most consumers think there auto is worth more than insurers often do.

Sometimes with reasonably good justification.

We once had a vehicle totaled due to hail damage. The insurance company stated their payment value. The issue became, their payment was quite a bit less than what we had paid for the vehicle sometime between 30 and 60 days before the date of the hail damage.

My wife argued with the insurance people for several weeks before they finally agreed to reimburse what we had paid for the vehicle.

 

[LostDollar]

Hi Hank,

There is no such thing as full coverage insurance.

You are busy being a pi$$y jerk here.

Op, and I, are consumers. We haven't sold thousands of auto policies and had hundreds of hours of carrier training.

I have probably had auto insurance for over half a century, and a good portion of that time, I think it was "full coverage".

I think I have always heard the "consumer facing" terminology for liability, comp, and collision as "full coverage".

If you are going to criticize, why don't you also enlighten us as to the "proper insurance terminology" for what we of the unwashed masses call "full coverage".

 

[Riskfreak]

You are busy being a pi$$y jerk here.

Hi Lostdollar, Special Agent Elliot Becker here with responses to your questions:

Firstly: Stating a fact means I'm a jerk? I can lie like the agents who sold you "full coverage" for half a century if you'd prefer.

op, and I, are consumers. We haven't sold thousands of auto policies and had hundreds of hours of carrier training.

I have a P&C license that I studied 40 hours for. Does that make me more qualified than a consumer 2-3x my age with over 5000 posts on an insurance website? This is insurance 101, I'm not getting into anything technical that would require thousands of transactions or hundreds of hours of training to understand.

I have probably had auto insurance for over half a century, and a good portion of that time, I think it was "full coverage".

I think I have always heard the "consumer facing" terminology for liability, comp, and collision as "full coverage".

If you are going to criticize, why don't you also enlighten us as to the "proper insurance terminology" for what we of the unwashed masses call "full coverage".

Okay, well, hate to be the one to break it to you, but anyone who's said that for the past 50+ years to you has been incorrect. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been a such thing, nor will there ever be a such thing as full coverage auto insurance. Yes, it was incorrectly used as a marketing term for some time, but after enough lawsuits, terminology tends to get outdated.

You can take that term and remove it from your vocabulary. If an agent uses that term in today's world, you should not be working with that agent.

This isn't rocket science. Let's go through some common exclusions on your "Full coverage" auto policy.

• Intentional Damage: If you intentionally damage your vehicle or someone else's property with your vehicle, probably not going to be covered
• Wear and Tear: Regular maintenance and the normal wear and tear of a vehicle are almost never not covered. This includes issues like brake wear, tire replacement, and oil changes.
• Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown: Unless the policy includes specific breakdown coverage or is a specialized type of insurance like mechanical breakdown insurance, typical auto policies do not cover mechanical or electrical failures and it is rare to see it on a policy.
• Using the Vehicle for Commercial Purposes: Standard personal auto insurance policies usually exclude coverage if the vehicle is used for commercial purposes, such as ride-sharing, delivery services, or other business uses, without appropriate commercial coverage or an endorsement you won't have coverage.
• Racing and Speed Contests: Damage incurred while participating in races, speed tests, or other competitive events is generally excluded.
• Acts of War and Terrorism: Most standard auto insurance policies exclude coverage for damages resulting from acts of war, insurrections, and sometimes acts of terrorism.
• Pre-existing Damage: Damage that occurred before the insurance policy was in effect is not covered. Auto insurance is usually designed to cover and indemnity you from future risks, not pre-existing conditions.
• Custom Modifications: Unless specifically added to the policy, custom modifications and aftermarket parts may not be covered. This includes custom paint jobs, performance parts, and other alterations made to the vehicle.
• Personal Belongings Inside the Vehicle: While comprehensive insurance may cover the theft of the vehicle itself, personal belongings inside the vehicle (like electronics, clothing, or other personal items) are typically not covered under an auto insurance policy. These items may be covered under a homeowners or renters insurance policy.

I could keep going, but you probably get the picture by now. Doesn't sound very full coverage to me.

Now let's say your agent calls it full coverage. What do they mean? That just means liability, comp and collision? What about rental car coverage? Roadside assistance? PIP/Med? Is there really a common understanding about what those things mean?

Consumers have a real tendency to get much less friendly with their agent if there's not a covered claim. Maybe at the time of purchase, there was a common understanding between you and your agent that full coverage meant comp and collision.

Now imagine you're in an accident and your liability coverage was insufficient to cover the other parties damages. Imagine in the same accident that you have injuries that exceed your pip/medpay limit. Imagine you're going to go bankrupt due to these factors.

Hmm now all the sudden you remember your agent uttering that little phrase "Full coverage". Why wasn't my liability FULLY taken care of? My hospital bills FULLY paid, what does FULL coverage mean Mr. Agent?

Something for you to think about.

Respectfully,

Special Agent Elliot Becker